Coordinaton Group for Meteorological Satellites - CGMSInternatonal Radiaton Commission – July 2018 Business Meetng

The Internatonal TOVS (Soundings) Working Group (ITWG)

Niels Bormann (ECMWF)

Mitch Goldberg (NOAA/NESDIS)

ITWG Co-Chairs

Vincent Guidard (Météo-France)

Liam Gumley (U Winsconsin/SSEC)

Presented to IRC, July 2018 Business Meeting

Summary of highlights and request for guidance from ITSC-21

Internatonal Radiaton Commission – July 2018 Business Meetng

Internatonal TOVS Working Group (ITWG)

• Established in 1983 as a working group of the Internatonal Radiaton Commission (IRC) of the Internatonal Associaton of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics (IAMAP)

• Formally adopted as sub-group of CGMS in 2012

• Provides a forum where operatonal and research users of atmospheric infrared and microwave sounders exchange informaton on: – Sensor status– Processing methods and derived products– Data use in Numerical Weather Predicton– Radiatve transfer developments– Climate studies– etc

Internatonal Radiaton Commission – July 2018 Business Meetng

ITSC-21Hosted by EUMETSAT in Darmstadt, Germany

− 29 November – 5 December 2017− 180 partcipants − 63 oral, 132 poster presentatons− htp://cimsssssecswiscsedu/itwg/itsc/itsc21

Topics Covered:

− Current, new and future observing systems

− Reports from space agencies and NWP Centres

− Data assimilaton applicatons− Climate applicatons− Processing sofware systems− Advanced sounder science − Radiatve transfer models− Cloud and precipitaton

applicatons− Retrieval Science

Internatonal Radiaton Commission – July 2018 Business Meetng

Working GroupsSix Working Groups

• Radiatve Transfer and Surface Property Modelling• Climate• Data Assimilaton and

NWP• Advanced Sounders• Internatonal Issues and

Future Systems• Products and Sofware

Technical Sub-Groups

• RTTOV• CRTM• RARS/DBNET and direct

broadcast packages

Internatonal Radiaton Commission – July 2018 Business Meetng

Recommendatons from ITSC-21 to IRC

21. To IRC and agencies involved in radiative transfer developments: ITWG strongly recommends continuous efforts in radiative transfer modelling developments, especially regarding: • Line-by-line model development as a fundamental basis for accurate radiative transfer

calculations in fast RT models. • Development of reference-quality ocean-surface emissivity modeling, specifically

Infrared, Microwave, for both active and passive simulations. • Extension of the frequency range of scattering models to cover the ranges of current

and upcoming sensors, from visible to microwave (i.e., ICI channels).

22. To IRC and agencies involved in spectroscopy research and radiative transfer development: ITWG strongly recommends continuous support of theoretical and laboratory spectroscopic studies to improve the accuracy of fundamental parametersrequired for radiative transfer calculations (e.g., research into spectroscopy of higherfrequency microwave channels up to 1000 GHz), as well as efforts to map uncertainties in spectroscopy into radiance uncertainties.

Internatonal Radiaton Commission – July 2018 Business Meetng

Recommendatons from ITSC-21 to IRCfrom Internaton issues and future systems WG

The IIFS noted a need for more work on LBL spectroscopic uncertainty and a unified model for describing the shape of the relevant atmospheric water vapour lines from the microwave (MW) to the visible. This should include the thermal (TIR) and shortwave infrared (SWIR)regions. This resulted in the following recommendation to IRC.

Recommendation IIFS-1 to IRCDevelopment of a new unified model for describing spectroscopic and water vapourcontinuum absorption

CLOUDS and

RADIATION

recent developments

IRC meeting Vancover 2018

with contributions from Tristan L’Ecuyer Lazaros Oreopoulos Martin Wild Terry Nakajima Xiquan Dong Stefan Kinne Miklos Zagoni

CLOUDS & RADIATION

Cloud Radiation Effects (CRE)

clouds cool the climate … but (CRE) strength (& sign) differ by cloud type

cloud boundaries from active remote sensing and (bb-radiation from) passive remote sensing offers new CRE insights

breakdown of CRE spatial distributions by (1) phase, (2) structure and (3) type

solar dn CRE at high / polar latitudes appear too low (missed liquid) in models affects simulated placement of the ITCZ

CLOUDS & RADIATION

CRE = all-sky flux minus clear-sky flux

CRE at TOA (W/m2)

CLOUDS & RADIATION ISCCP cloud classifications Chen / Rossow / Zhang. 2000

- 33.4 on average clouds cool the climate

breakdown by cloud type

… and now with

• new information from space-borne active sensing is used

• explicit cloud boundaries and phase reveal … • in the past (ERBE/ ISCCP) analysis …

multi-layer cloud systems were often misclassified as mid-level clouds

• supercooled liquid clouds at higher latitudes are underestimated in modeling

CLOUDS & RADIATION

CLOUDS & RADIATION

CRE at TOA and surf (W/m2)

Oreopoulos et al. (2017)

… breakdown by structure

Simplified Cloud Vertical Structures (CloudSat/CALIPSO + 2B-CLDCLASS-LIDAR)

IR TOA solar

IR surf solar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

only ‘1’ and ‘4’ warm the climate

all cld structures cool the surface

CLOUDS & RADIATION

CRE at atm (W/m2)

Oreopoulos et al. (2017)

… breakdown by structure

Simplified Cloud Vertical Structures (CloudSat/CALIPSO + 2B-CLDCLASS-LIDAR)

CREATM > 0 warming

CREATM < 0 cooling

H

M

L

H XM M

X L

H X M X L

HM HL

ML HML

+4.5 0.0 -6.4 +1.7 -0.6 +4.6 +0.7 + 0.4 -0.4 +0.1

cloud cover (%)

CLOUDS & RADIATION

total

pure ice

mixed phase

pure liquid

distinct liquid &ice

73.0

2007-2010

breakdown by cloud phase

CRE at TOA (W/m2)

CLOUDS & RADIATION

2007-2010

total

mixed phase

pure ice

pure liquid

distinct liquid &ice

Matus , L’Ecuyer, JGR, (2017)

- 29.1

breakdown by cloud phase

CRE at surf (W/m2)

CLOUDS & RADIATION total

pure ice

mixed phase

pure liquid

distinct liquid &ice

2007-2010

breakdown by cloud phase

Matus , L’Ecuyer, JGR, (2017)

- 36.4

CRE in atm (W/m2)

CLOUDS & RADIATION

2007-2010

breakdown - by cld phase - by solar CRE - by IR CRE

Matus , L’Ecuyer, JGR, (2017) solar heating

CLOUDS & RADIATION Hang and L’Ecuyer, subm to JGR Stephens et al., 2018

ERBE / ISCCP

25 yr ago

now

CMIP5 model (spread) vs satellite data cover : Calipso /

Cloudsat (CC) most sensitive

water content: model misses at high latitudes

but TOA fluxes are OK ! … ??

Calipso Cloudsat indicates more COT and more water at high latitudes

CLOUDS & RADIATION

CERES ISCCP, Cloudsat/Calipso CMIP5 modeling (cover only 58%)

cover

up solar flux at TOA

cloud water/ice

South Pole EQ North Pole

up IR flux at TOA

A-Train vs model climate model bias

in polar regions

underestimate the frequency / impact of super-cooled liquid in polar reg.

… as with super-cooled liquid in models … snowfall is then too quick

CLOUDS & RADIATION

McIlhattan et al, J. Climate, (2017)

global model BIAS impact

‘like’ a simulated heat-source over Southern Hemis.

sensitivity studies indicate a ITCZ shift towards a high latitude heat source

CLOUDS & RADIATION

inter-hemispheric extratropical thermal forcing is balanced by the adjustment of the Hadley circulation S.Kang et al. Climate and Atmospheric Science (2017) 1:2

reanalysis vs model

DIFF in ocean heat transport

clouds modulate oceanic heat trans

equal flux equator (EFE) near 2 deg N

CLOUDS & RADIATION

Ocean Heat Transport

Nelson, E. L., et, 2018: "Poleward Bound: Energy Transport Representation in the Current Era, subm to J. Geophys. Res.

due to model bias in s.ocean clouds

new insights with active RS

only high cloud can warm the climate …and warms the atmosphere

liquid phase cools the climate strongest … and also cools the atmosphere

multi-layered clouds more frequent … ISCCP misclassified as mid and low clouds

too few super-cooled clouds in modeling ( too much solar insolation) at high latitudes … too southerly ITCZ locations

CLOUDS & RADIATION

aerosol clouds radiation

today’s anthropogenic aerosols cool (climate) lower TOA net-fluxes at all-sky conditions

clouds (indirect) add to clear-sky cooling overall ca 40% stronger cooling at TOA overall ca 20% stronger cooling at surface

reduction by cloud shading reduction by allowing aerosol dimming (at TOA) reduction by smaller drops / larger cld opt. dept

dimming / brightening (referred to as: local solar insolation changes over time at the surface) mainly caused by changes/shifts in

anthropogenic aerosol

CLOUDS & RADIATION

ant aerosol TOA forcing 1865 - 2065

CLOUDS & RADIATION

clear-sky shade/dim Twomey total

1865

1905

1945

1985

2025

2065

Kinne 2018, in prep

ant aerosol surf effects 1865 - 2065

CLOUDS & RADIATION

clear-sky shade/dim Twomey total

1865

1905

1945

1985

2025

2065

Kinne 2018, in prep

regional in nature dimming / brightening by aerosol

CLOUDS & RADIATION

1905-1865

1945-1905

1985-1945

2025-1985

regional solar insolation change from changes in anthrop aerosol only (between years)

Kinne 2018, in prep

on aerosol and climate

today’s climate (TOA) cooling: at -1 W/m2 combined direct and indirect (via clouds) effects

has not changed much over last 30 years unlikely to change much over next decades

strong regional shifts of maxima though … with strong impacts on solar insolation

1945-1985 dimming over EU, US, SE-ASIA now-1985 continued dimming over SE-Asia now-1985 brightening over EU, US … consistent with surface observations

CLOUDS & RADIATION

on clouds ( aerosol) and climate

clouds are modified by ant. aerosol indirect effect: smaller drops / larger COT

most effective: in aerosol poor regions

at TOA: indirect cooling > direct cooling today: indirect -0.65 W/m2 direct (all-sky) -0.35 W/m2

at sur: indirect cooling < direct cooling today: indirect -0.65 W/m2 direct (all-sky) -1.6 W/m2

in atm: only direct warming

CLOUDS & RADIATION

fundamental relationships … … in global flux averages ?

global average radiative flux prop. are multiples of 26.6 W/m2 ?

SW cloud radiative effects: 2 units LW cloud radiative effects: 1 unit

just a curiosity ?

CLOUDS & RADIATION miklos.zagoni @t-online.hu

conceptual approach

extra slides

ice in DCS (deep convective systems)

CLOUDS & RADIATION

NEXRAD reflectivity and empirical relationships derived from in- situ data are used to retrieve IWC and IWP

G gg

Vertical distributions of S-band radar measured radar reflectivity and retrieved IWCs with DCS classification CSA (CC: Convective Core; SR: Stratiform Rain; ACthick: thick Anvil Cloud).

NEXRAD GOES

ice water path in anvil GOES

Tian et al. (2018), Comparisons of ice water path in deep convective systems … to those of ground-based, GOES and CERES-MODIS retrievals. JGR, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027498

role of wind-shear CLOUDS & RADIATION

wind-shear (in region C) enhances collision-coalescence processes in clouds for (faster) drizzle generation

G gg

Wu et al. (2017, JGR)

CMIP5 models vs ‘data’ CLOUDS & RADIATION

comparing cloud cover & water / TOA fluxes

G gg

Dong et al.

cover

water

SW flux

LW flux

satellite mission plans …

for understanding global scale climate change and water cycle mechanisms

AMSR2 F/O 6-89/166/190GHz for solid hydrometeors for forest biomass estimation combined vegetation lidar and L-band SAR． for Short Lived Climate Pollutant reductions SLCP inventories via UV/VIS/SWIR＋MIR+MW for understanding cloud/precip processes combined DPR and CPR measurements for monitoring global environm. changes SGLI F/O and NUV-TIR imager

CLOUDS & RADIATION

Teruyuki Nakajima, JAXA

new capabilities with the GCOM-C satellite 30

launched: Dec. 23, 2017

Jan. 2018 Degree of polarization

1.6 µm radiance

Ocean and Land color around Japan

sea ice

snow

ice cloud 30

31

SST

GCOM-C/SGLI acquired images

MOBY 20.82N 157.19W

atmospheric cooling

atmos. warming

CRE breakdown by MODIS Cloud regimes

(into 12 clusters)

Oreopoulos et al. (2016)

CLOUDS & RADIATION

IPRT - International working group on polarizedradiative transfer

Claudia Emde and Bernhard Mayer

Meteorological InstituteLudwig-Maximilians-University Munich

Germany

IRC business meeting, Vancouver, 10 July 2018

Claudia Emde and Bernhard Mayer (LMU) IPRT (polarized radiative transfer) 10 July 2018 1 / 6

International Working Group on Polarized Radiative Transfer

Aims of working group IPRT:

bring the community together (workshops)

compare and improve models, 3D modelintercomparison

provide benchmark results

provide information about free codes

develop new and faster, publically available codes

provide input data (scattering matrices,BPDFs – bidirectional polarization distributionfunctions, ...)

Project website:www.meteo.physik.uni-muenchen.de/˜iprt

Claudia Emde and Bernhard Mayer (LMU) IPRT (polarized radiative transfer) 10 July 2018 2 / 6

Model intercomparison for polarized radiative transferin 3D geometry

Test cases:I Step cloudI Cubic cloudI LES cloud scene

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

1

2

3

4

5

6

Rayle

igh

I

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320x10−3

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

1

2

3

4

5

6

Q

6.04.53.01.5

0.01.53.04.56.0

x10−3

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

1

2

3

4

5

6

U

6.0

4.5

3.0

1.5

0.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

6.0x10−3

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

1

2

3

4

5

6

V

4321

01234

x10−5

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

1

2

3

4

5

6

P

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

%

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

1

2

3

4

5

6

Aero

sol

0306090120150180210240270

x10−3

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

1

2

3

4

5

6

6

4

2

0

2

4

6

x10−3

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

1

2

3

4

5

6

6

4

2

0

2

4

6

x10−3

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

1

2

3

4

5

6

10.07.55.02.5

0.02.55.07.510.0

x10−5

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

1

2

3

4

5

6

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

%

case 2: θ0=20 ◦ , φ0=180 ◦ , z=0km , θ=40 ◦ , φ=60 ◦

Claudia Emde and Bernhard Mayer (LMU) IPRT (polarized radiative transfer) 10 July 2018 3 / 6

Participating 3D vector radiative transfer models

model name method geometry references3DMCPOL Monte Carlo 1D/3D Cornet et al. (2010),

Fauchez et al. (2014)MSCART Monte Carlo 1D/3D Wang et al. (2017)MYSTIC Monte Carlo 1D/3D(a) Emde et al. (2010),

Mayer (2009)SHDOM spherical harmonics

discrete ordinate1D/3D Evans (1998)

SPARTA Monte Carlo 1D/3D Barlakas et al. (2016)(a)MYSTIC includes fully spherical geometry for 1D and 3D.

Claudia Emde and Bernhard Mayer (LMU) IPRT (polarized radiative transfer) 10 July 2018 4 / 6

Results and publication

ResultsI Models agree mostly within expected accuracy

(i.e. standard deviation for Monte Carlo codes)I Differences at cloud boundaries due to definitions of model gridsI Several model errors identified and fixed!I Benchmark results established, available at IPRT website

Publication:I C. Emde, V. Barlakas, C. Cornet, F. Evans, Z. Wang, L. C.-Labonotte, A.

Macke, B. Mayer, and M. Wendisch.IPRT polarized radiative transfer model intercomparison project –Three-dimensional test cases (phase B).J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer, 209:19-44, 2018.

Claudia Emde and Bernhard Mayer (LMU) IPRT (polarized radiative transfer) 10 July 2018 5 / 6

Outlook - Polarized radiative transfer in fully sphericalgeometry

Model intercomparison study in fully spherical geometryParticularly challenging for vector radiative transfer models using explicitmethods (e.g. discrete ordinate or doubling-and-adding)Investigate accuracy of approximationsSo far no benchmark results exist!

Earth as seen by the moon, simulated with MYSTICin fully spherical geometry.

Claudia Emde and Bernhard Mayer (LMU) IPRT (polarized radiative transfer) 10 July 2018 6 / 6

ET

H

IRC working group

Global Energy Balance (GEB)

Annual Report 2017-2018

Martin Wild and Norman Loeb (WG Co-chairs)

IRC Business Meeting at 15th AMS radiation conference, July 2018, Vancouver

ET

HObjectives WG Global Energy Balance

The main goals of this working group are the

assessment of the magnitude and uncertainties

of the components of the global energy balance,

their decadal changes and underlying causes as

well as their significance for other climate system

components and climate change.

ET

HActivities: Meeting organization

2017 / 2018:

• European Geophysical Union (EGU) General Assembly 2018, Vienna,

April 2018. Organization of the session “Earth radiation budget, radiative

forcing and climate change”, closely linked to the aims of this working group.

(consecutive till 2006). Convenor Martin Wild. Solicited speaker: Norman Loeb

• American Geophysical Union (AGU) General Assembly 2017, New

Orleans December 2017. Organization of the session “The Surface Energy

Budget: Influences on Spatiotemporal Magnitude and Variability” Convenors:

Arturo Sanchez, Martin Wild, Paul Stackhouse, Chuck Long.

Upcoming:

• American Geophysical Union (AGU) General Assembly 2018, Washington

DC, December 2018. Organization of the session “The Surface Energy

Budget: Influences on Spatiotemporal Magnitude and Variability”

• IUGG 2019, Montreal July 2019, Session M26 “Earth’s energy budget”

Convenors: Seiji Kato, Martin Wild, Norman Loeb

ET

HActivities: assignements

• WG-GEB Co-Chairs Norman Loeb and Martin Wild are involved

in the CLIVAR Research focus “Consistency between

planetary heat balance and ocean heat storage”.

• WG-GEB Co-Chair Martin Wild has been assigned as a Lead

Author of the IPCC 6th Assessment report for Chapter 7 “Earth

Energy Budget, Radiative forcing and Feedbacks”

ET

H

73 Wm-2

Consistent estimates from completely independent approaches

improve confidence in magnitude of global energy balance

cf. CERES EBAF Ed4

73 Wm-2 (Kato et al. 2018)

Example research: Global Energy Balance

314 Wm-2

cf. CERES EBAF Ed4

314 Wm-2 (Kato et al. 2018)

Wild et al, submitted

ET

HExample research: atmospheric absorption

> Poster 130

Matthias Schwarz

Atmospheric SW Absorption

at BSRN site Lindenberg

ET

H

Schwarz et al. 2017 JGR

Example research: representativeness

How representative is a surface radiation site

for its larger surounings?

ET

HRecommendations

Recommendations TOA aspects

Government agencies responsible for building the next generation of Earth

Radiation Budget instruments should be urged to

• include onboard calibration equipment that can detect and correct for on-

orbit contamination of optics.

• dedicate sufficient time for ground calibration activities.

• periodically re-verify the traceability of calibration targets on the ground.

• establish collaborations with other international agencies specializing in

calibration standards (e.g., NIST, NRL).

The international community should provide guidance on the creation of

Earth Radiation Budget climate data records. Earth Radiation Budget Climate

Data Records capable of accurately characterizing climate at decadal time-

scales are inherently more research data products than they are operational

data products. While an operational approach works fine for processing

weather data, far more rigor and quality assurance is necessary for climate

data products, where reprocessing is an integral part of the effort.

ET

HRecommendations

Recommendations surface aspects

• Ensure a continued operation and maintenance of a well calibrated network of long

term surface radiation stations to provide direct observations for satellite-derived

products and model validation, and for the detection of changes in the radiation fields.

• High accuracy observation sites should be expanded to under-represented regions of

the globe (low latitudes/ oceans). The use of newly available shortwave radiometers

(SPN-1) suited for use in remote locations (buoys /ships) is recommended.

• Anchor sites should include direct and diffuse shortwave measurements in addition to

total incoming shortwave along with standard surface meteorological measurements

essential for radiation quality assessment.

• To improve surface albedo estimates over various surface types and for the

assessment of satellite derived albedo products, high accuracy spectral and

broadband measurements from towers are desirable at the anchor sites

• Atmospheric spectral optical depths should be observed to infer atmospheric column

abundance of aerosol, ozone, water vapor and other atmospheric constituents.

• The spatial representativeness of surface anchor sites needs to be further assessed

(Hakuba et al. 2013, 2014, Schwarz et al. 2018). Possible urbanization effects (impact

of local air pollution) in surface solar radiation records needs quantification.

• Letters of support from the International Radiation Commission to National agencies

funding BSRN stations may help to raise the recognition of the importance of such

anchor sites. A letter of support from the IRC for the continuation of the radiation

measurements at sites operationally struggling and/or at risk of being shut down may

therefore be helpful.

ET

HRecommendations

Request by WG-GEB member Chuck Long

A letter of IRC to GDAP, GCOS, WCRP, and GEWEX stating the

importance for BSRN representatives (project manager, archive

director) to attend meetings such as IRC, GCOS, GEWEX,

NDACC business meetings, where BSRN is listed as partner

networks, participating networks, members of working groups, in

order to facilitate travel support.

Contacts:

GDAPChair Rémy Roca (Remy.Roca@legos.obs-mip.fr) and Co-Chair

TristanL'Ecuyer (tlecuyer@wisc.edu)

GCOS Carolin Richter (crichter@wmo.int)

GEWEX Peter J. van Oevelen (gewex@gewex.org)

WCRP (wcrp@wmo.int)

• Dormant for a while now

• RT Community still active• e.g., recent ECMWF workshop on RT in NWPs:

• optical and macrophysical properties of clouds and aerosols• gaseous absorption• solvers and efficiency• complex surfaces• beyond the stratosphere• evaluation and data assimilation.

• Has moved on to other RT intercomparison efforts

• Funding model in US not optimal for leading community efforts outside academia

• Last CIRC-related activity was Pincus et al. 4xCO2 forcing assessment using CIRC clear-sky cases (JGR, 2015, 15 citations in WOS)

• CIRC papers citation status (WOS)• BAMS 2010, 21 citations• JGR 2012, 55 citations

• We recommend to sunset the CIRC IRC WG

CIRC update(by Lazaros Oreopoulos and Eli Mlawer)

• “RT intercomparisons”• Can encompass a variety of current and planned efforts (1D-3D, spectral-

BB-polarized, GCM-assimilation-satellite) or be limited to 1D BB GCM-relevant (to not overlap with other WG IRC wants to preserve)

• IRC does not organize, define or oversee efforts within WG; rather advocates, advertises and encourages community participation

• WG chair(s) have good connections in RT community and actively seek updates from the leads of the efforts

• WG chair(s) provide regular updates to IRC and recommend ways IRC can help promote efforts

• Example of effort under “RT intercomparisons”: RFMIP (Pincus presentation)

Proposal for a new IRC WG(by Eli Mlawer and Lazaros Oreopoulos)

Working Group-Ultraviolet Radiation

Co-chairs: Julian Gröbner and Ann Webb

Members: A. Bais, L. Egli, M. Blumthaler

Overview of Activities 2017/2018

• 2nd International UV Filter Radiometer calibration at PMOD/WRC

• ECUVM –

European Conference on Solar UV Monitoring, 12-14 September 2018, Vienna, AT.

• Joint WMO UV & Ozone Scientific Advisory Group meeting, 24-25 May, 2018

• UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme :

UNEP EEAP Quadrennial Report on “Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion and

Interactions with Climate Change - 2018” has several chapters on solar UV radiation

and effects

-> currently under review

A recently published UV trend result

Included in the UNEP assessment

2nd International UV Filter Radiometer calibration campaignUVC-II 25 May – 5 October 2017

Instruments: 70 + 5 (PMOD)

Participants: 57

Countries: 36 (Europe: 22)

Input Optics of the two reference spectroradiometers

QASUME and QASUMEII

Solar Light:

19 analog

10 digital YES: 11 Kipp & Zonen: 28 Eppley, Genicom, Indium Sensors, DeltaOhm, EKO: 7

UVC-II result

Last Calibration > 5y

Last Calibration 2016,2017

±4.4%

WCCUV Calibration

32 Instruments within combined expanded uncertainty of 4.4%

Summary UVC-II

1) Large number of participants from all WMO regions.

2) Low uncertainties are only achieved by applying the full

radiometric equation,

3) Radiometers degrade faster than the typical calibration

frequency

4) Some radiometers lack proper basic maintenance (silicagel,

cleaning, …)

UVC-III is planned for 2022

Published as WMO GAW report Nb. 240

Some recent publications on UV radiation

• 12 extended proceedings from the 2016 IRS Symposium

• Fountoulakis et al., 2018, Temperature dependence of the UV Brewer global UV

measurements, AMT, 2018

• Zempila et al., Validation of OMI erythemal doses with multi-sensor ground-based

measurements in Thessaloniki, Greece, Atm. Env., 2018

• Lakkala et al., Performance of the FMI cosine error correction method for the Brewer

spectral UV measurements, AMTD 2018

• McKenzie et al., Critical Appraisal of Data Used to Infer Record UVI in the Tropical

Andes, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2017,

• Meelis-Mait et al., LED-based UV souce for monitoring spectroradiometer properties,

Metrologia, 2018.

• Gröbner et al., The high-resolution extraterrestrial solar spectrum (QASUMEFTS)

determined from ground-based solar irradiance measurements, AMT, 2017.

• Schmalwieser, et al., UV Index monitoring in Europe, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2017.

International Coordination-group for

Laser Atmospheric Studies (ICLAS)

Working Group Report for 2015-2017

ICLAS: Promotes the development and application of laser sensing

techniques and laser instrument architectures used to study the

atmospheres of the Earth and other planets.

ICLAS: Takes care of the promotion and organization of the

International Laser Radar Conferences (ILRCs), gathering the laser

remote sensing community and are convened every 2 years. The ILRCs

are held under the auspices of the ICLAS.

Alex PAPAYANNIS, ICLAS PresidentNational Technical University of Athens, Greece

Upendra N. SINGH, Past ICLAS PresidentNASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA

IRC Business Meeting, July 10, 2018, Vancouver, Canada

ICLAS is composed of:• The President, who is the WG Chairman

• The Working Group

• The Executive Committee The term of office of the President shall be six years

The Working Group members shall have six-year terms

Approximately 13 members with 6-year terms

Committee meets at the ILRC Conference site every two years

Candidates are proposed and selected seeking to achieve a reasonable balance

in their geographical and professional distribution

Executive Committee members include, President, Past President, with six

year term and Treasurer with no term limitation

The Executive Committee in consultation with ICLAS members elects new

members and selects the winners of different awards, including Inaba Prize,

Lifetime Achievement Award and various oral and poster awards

ICLAS

ICLASPresident

Upendra SINGH U.S.A. 2008-2015

Alex PAPAYANNIS GREECE 2015-2021

Working Group Members

Doina NICOLAE Romania 2010-2016

Thomas McGEE U.S.A. 2010-2016

Kohei MIZUTANI Japan 2010-2016

Yingjian WANG China 2010-2016

Ferdinando De TOMASI Italy 2012-2018

Georgios TZEREMES European Space Agency 2017-2023

Fred MOSHARI U.S.A. 2017-2023

Dave Donovan THE NETHERLANDS 2017-2023

Dong LIU CHINA 2017-2023

Kevin STRAWBRIDGE CANADA 2012-2018

Eduardo LANDULFO BRAZIL 2012-2018

Sergey BOBROVNIKOV RUSSIA 2012-2018

Fabien GIBERT FRANCE 2012-2018

Makoto ABO JAPAN 2012-2018

Shoken Ishii JAPAN 2017-2023

Dimitrios BALIS GREECE 2015-2021

Xinzhao CHU U.S.A. 2015-2021

Andreas FIX GERMANY 2015-2021

Executive Committee (includes current President)

Outgoing President Upendra SINGH (U.S.A.) 2015-2021

Treasurer Tom McGee (U.S.A.) No term limit

IRC Business Meeting, July 10, 2018, Vancouver, Canada

Report on the 27th International Laser Radar Conference (ILRC)

• 5-10 July 2015, New York, U.S.A. (http://ilrc27.org)• 267 attendees – 27 countries (211 regular members and 56 students)

• Conference co-chairs: Prof. Dr. Fred Moshary and Prof. Dr. Barry

Gross

• 302 submitted papers (92 oral and 210 posters), with the paper

summaries (extended abstracts) published in a USB stick

• 14 oral sessions, plus 2 keynote presentations and 13 poster sessions

• Prior to its official start, on 4 July 2012 the second free lidar course

for beginners was organized onsite.

• In total 40 travel grants were provided to students to attend this

ILRC.

IRC Business Meeting, July 10, 2018, Vancouver, Canada

Report on the 28th International Laser Radar Conference (ILRC)

• 25-30 June 2017, Bucharest, Romania (http://ilrc28.inoe.ro)• 353 attendees – 31 countries (259 regular members and 94 students)

• Conference co-chairs: Dr. Doina, INOE, Romania

• 299 submitted papers (93 oral and 206 posters), with the paper

summaries (extended abstracts) published in USB stick

• 11 oral sessions, plus 8 keynote/invited presentations and 10 poster

sessions

• On the 1st day of the Conference 25 June 2017 the 3rd free lidar

course for beginners was organized onsite

• In total 62 travel grants were provided to students to attend this

ILRC

IRC Business Meeting, July 10, 2018, Vancouver, Canada

Dr. Jack Kaye, Associate Director, Science Mission Directorate, NASA HQ

Mr. George Komar, Program Director, Earth Science Technology Office, NASA GSFC

Dr. Milton Huffaker, President, Coherent Investments, USA

Laser Radar Society of Japan

ILRC Organizing Committees

Acknowledgements for Supporting

Students, Junior and Senior Scientist’s

Travel to ILRC

IRC Business Meeting, July 10, 2018, Vancouver, Canada

Radiative Forcing MIP

One of the motivating questions for CMIP6 is “how does the Earth system respond to forcing?” But effective radiative forcing varies among models and has not been well understood in previous experiments.

RFMIP seeks to characterize ERF for CMIP, understand how differences in this forcing arise between models, and identify robust responses to aerosol forcing

Atmosphere-only fixed-SST simulations to characterize effective radiative forcing.

Complementary efforts to assess parameterization errors in instantaneous radiative forcing for greenhouse gases and aerosols

Coupled simulations using CMIP6 specification of aerosol optical properties for hypothesis testing, detection and attribution

Radiative Forcing MIP

One of the motivating questions for CMIP6 is “how does the Earth system respond to forcing?” But effective radiative forcing varies among models and has not been well understood in previous experiments.

RFMIP seeks to characterize ERF for CMIP, understand how differences in this forcing arise between models, and identify robust responses to aerosol forcing

Atmosphere-only simulations to characterize effective radiative forcing.

Complementary efforts to understand parameterization errors in instantaneous radiative forcing for greenhouse gases and aerosols

Coupled simulations using CMIP6 specification of aerosol optical properties for hypothesis testing, detection and attribution

RFMIP-IRF-GHG

Errors in aerosol-free clear-sky greenhouse gas instantaneous radiative forcing rely on off-line radiative transfer calculations with specified atmospheric conditions

Assessment on the global scale requires reference calculations for a much wider range of atmospheric and surface conditions than in past exercises.

We are providing (and soliciting) benchmark calculations with line-by-line models. These require substantially higher spectral resolution than do exercises aimed at aerosol IRF.

For many benchmark models global calculations are impractical. They are also unnecessary, especially for cloud- and aerosol-free skies, because profiles don’t vary much.

Sampling to reproduce global-mean forcing

RFMIP uses 100 columns as a compromise between accuracy and computational cost.

Sampling errors are small: sampling error in the global mean forcing at present-day is 0.6% for LW at TOA and 0.2% for surface downwelling SW.

Using a wide range of perturbations and several latitude bands makes the sampling robust (e.g. to the model being used). 95th percentile errors across perturbations etc. remain < .02 W/m2 for global mean calculations.

Optimization reduces sampling error by ~4 times relative to random sampling

The sample is optimal for computing global mean forcing, not stress-testing models.

25 50 100 200 400Number of sampled columns

0.01

0.1

RM

S co

lum

n sa

mpl

ing

erro

rs in

forc

ing

(W/m

2 ) .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.SOCRATES-ref mean, std dev.

SOCRATES-ref min error

RRTMG mean, std dev.

***

***

***

Present−day LW forcingnet down (W/m2)

TOA Surface Divergence

0.77

2.05

2.82

**

**

**

TOA Surface Divergence−

0.44

0.0

5 0

.49

Present−day SW forcingnet down (W/m2)

Benchmarks in context

●

●●●

●●●●

●

●●

●

●●●●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●●●●●●●●

Error in SW TOA forcing (W/m2)

Erro

r in

SW

SFC

forc

ing

(W/m

2 )

●●●●

●

●●●

●●●

●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●●●

●

● ●●●

Error in SW absorption in present−day (W/m2)Er

ror

in S

W a

bsor

ptio

n fo

rcin

g (W

/m2 )

5

5

-5

-5

5

-15-25 5

m

RFMIP-IRF-AER

The aerosol protocol is modestly more CMIP-like: sets of snapshots of

clear-sky aerosol IRF

spectrally detailed aerosol and surface properties + atmospheric state

GFDL and LBNL are committed to make reference calculations to assess the error in parameterized IRF